Saturday night, the Mike Huckabee show on Fox News featured a presidential forum. It was a nice, refreshing change, with serious questions being asked by conservatives.
Newt answered one question from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
From Fox News:
Newt Gingrich, who in a Des Moines Register Poll out Saturday has taken the lead in Iowa at 25 percent support, defended his proposal for determining which illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the United States. Bondi expressed concerns that neighborhood boards would undermine the rule of law, especially when neighbors and friends would be determining their fate.
"That is what we do in a jury trial," said Gingrich. "That's the whole point. That's why the founding fathers who distrusted judges insisted on juries. Because ultimately, in a free society, the citizens have to bear responsibility for their own culture and their own society. And ultimately, they are -- I believe they are -- more trustworthy. If you ask me would I trust a jury or a Washington bureaucrat, I would rather have my fate decided by a jury of my peers than have my fate decided by a Washington bureaucrat."
While I am not in favor of amnesty or allowing illegal aliens to stay, I realize politics being what it is, we many not have the votes to get through a comprehensive plan that removes illegals from America.
The left will trot out the most sympathetic people it can find to tell us to let them all stay. USA Today hit that drumbeat today with a sobbing article about an illegal who was deported and her children remained in America.
If there is to be a compromise, then Newt nails it on the idea of a form of a jury trial. Jury trials are one of the greatest shields against tyranny and the abuses of power by governmental officials.
There is a reason why leftist special interest groups go to court and seek a ruling by a judge, not by a jury. On Tea Party Nation, I recently told of story of an ACLU lawsuit in Middle Tennessee against a school board, accusing them of allowing religious activities by students and teachers. The ACLU had originally asked for $100 in damages, thus triggering the right for the defendants to have a jury trial. The ACLU then amended their complaint to ask for only $1 in damages, thus denying the school board and the citizens a right to a jury trial.
Why is it those who love tyranny dislike the jury system so much?
The jury system is a shield against tyranny. There is a reason why that right is the only right covered by two specific Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Hopefully we can get all of the illegal aliens returned to their countries of origin and then if they want to come back, they can go through the legal system and wait their turn.
If, however, we cannot do that and for some reason there has to be a compromise in Congress, then these decisions on who stays and who does not stay should be made by a jury of the community, not by unaccountable government bureaucrats.
Thanks Aqui....I needed a little comic relief!!
Are you kidding me??? Pelosi wants to take on Newt!?! Now that truly would be an unfair fight. I can see Nancy jesticulating, arms all asunder, looking for that correct descriptive adjective (when she doesn't even know what one is) to explain away her "dirt on Newt" HA!!! She couldn't begin her tirade without a couple of non sequiturs and an infinite number of run on sentences to cause a case of somnabulism for the poor press corps assigned to cover her that day.
God Newt has a way of turning everything around with his command of the situation, nay ANY situation!!! Believe what you will about Newt, but this is the kind of wit, confidence, and intelligence WE NEED in the White house! Not the mamby pamby cupcake currently there.
"Early Christmas present" I love it!!! He even jabs at her with our religious holiday, her "good book" comment of awhile ago nonwithstanding!! Her timing couldn't have been better!
Thank you Ms. Nancy....soon you'll be saying, "I'm melting....I'm melting"!!!
I was under the impression that the Tea Party supported honorable people getting elected to prominent positions in Government. There is nothing honorable about Newt other than his refusal to slime other Republican candidates, for the time being anyway. Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and maybe Rick Santorum are the only choices.
I would rather have 4 more years of Obama than see Newt get elected; he will destroy the Republican Party for the next 20 years. At least with Obama, the Democrats will surely out for the next 8 to 12 years at least.
Newt seems to be proposing a setting a Statue of Limitations on illegal immigrations; he wants to get rid of Gubberment bureaucrats and replace them with public bureaucracies. With all the money we save from bringing our troops home now and closing down military bases around the globe, we will be able to afford shipping their illegal behinds back to whence then came.
In fact, I propose we build a High Speed Transit System that will speedily and economically transport these illegals back. This would consist of High Speed Rail between Texas, Arizona and California to Mexico. We could also set-up regular nonstop flights using the Air National Guard, Military Airlift Command or something. This is a National Emergency and we should treat it like one. I am thinking something like the Berlin Airlift only with illegal aliens.
David, "judge not lest ye be judged"...
As far as 4 more years of Obama, then if that's your "choice" I believe we can kiss what's left of the Republic goodbye, because by the end of those 4 years we'll be well on the way to full blown Socialism. I hope I'm wrong about that though.
Like others have said on this forum, whomever elected will be kept in check by also electing people to office in the Senate and the House that are based in firm Constitutional small government principles.
Or am I naive to think that?
A Point worth mentioning that I never see. They always put up the story of the family being seperated. Well I spent 21 years in the U.S. Army. I had three children. When I was transferred from New Jersey to Califorina, guess what, I took them with me. When I was transferred from California to Texas, guess what, I took them with me. In most cases when an illegal immigrant must take their children back home with them, there is very little readjustment because their children still for the most part speak their countries language and have not attempted to asemilate into the American culture.
Is a trial by jury of ones peers revelent today? Attorneys now hire consultant firms to select jurors more sympathic to their case so in fact juries are no longer the watch dog of the judicial system.
Excellent point Brenda! We need to remind Newt of that fact.
All need to read the Newt Gingrich interview with Glenn Beck:
Newt is the "grandfather" of Obama-Care ... pro-big government ...
We do not need a Progressive as the Republican Candidate.
Dr B Leland Baker
I agree that Newt is a progressive in republican clothing but I also believe that enough Americans have woken up since 2008 and have seen the destruction of the o'puke administration. I believe enough Americans have either felt or seen the pain of o'puke that anyone could defeat him.,
Go back to the idea of the jury trial point. The Citizen's Handbook ( google to find contents) gives another example of how the power of the people must remain supreme. AND NOT in the hands of liberal judges. The court of public opinion is speaking loudly about the lack of leadership in Washington, but it has not teeth. Trial by peers is one of the single most potent exercise of the power in the representative Republic, or what we have left of it.